Which income groups pay more under the Mumdani tax formula?

1. How the Millionaire Target Is Defined — Simple Policy, Big Effects

The core claim across analyses is that the proposal creates a special tax threshold for residents earning more than $1 million a year, implementing a 2 percent surcharge on that income. Multiple summaries describe this as either an added bracket or a surcharge that raises the city share on millionaires and pushes the combined city‑state top marginal rate into the mid‑teens range; one estimate puts the top combined rate at 16.8 percent after the increase ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Analysts uniformly frame the measure as narrow in eligibility but broad in revenue impact, meaning its incidence falls on a small group but accounts for a large portion of expected collections. The framing is consistent: the wealthy pay disproportionately more under the formula, a design feature rather than an incidental outcome ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Revenue Concentration — From 40% to Over 60% From the Top 1%

Multiple pieces quantify the distributional effect: the top roughly 1 percent of households already contribute about 40–41 percent of city and state income tax receipts, and under the proposal their share of revenue could rise to over 60 percent. This projection frames the tax as redistributive in fiscal terms because a very small cohort would carry a much larger share of the tax burden. The result is not only higher marginal rates for millionaires but also a reallocation of the revenue base toward high earners, changing the composition of tax receipts significantly even if total revenues fluctuate depending on behavioral responses ^{[1] [3]}.

3. Disagreement on Corporate and Marginal Rate Details — Watch the Fine Print

Analyses diverge on supplementary measures tied to the Mamdani plan, such as a proposed higher corporate tax rate of 11.5 percent and whether the 2 percent adjustment is a flat surcharge or an additional bracket culminating in a 5.9 percent local rate for millionaires. Some summaries treat the plan as a straightforward individual income surcharge; others incorporate corporate provisions that amplify the distributional and revenue effects. The variance reflects differing source emphases and possibly political framing: critics emphasize higher overall rates and business taxes, while proponents highlight the targeted nature of the millionaire surcharge ^{[4] [2] [3]}.

4. Behavioral Responses — Will the Rich Flee? Evidence Pushes Back

A major contested claim is whether higher taxes will drive wealthy residents away. Recent analysis notes that migration among top 1 percent earners is low, with net outflow rates around 0.2 percent on average, and that high‑income movers often relocate between other high‑tax jurisdictions rather than to low‑tax areas. This evidence undercuts the simple “tax flight” narrative and suggests that behavioral responses may be smaller than critics claim, though small movement can still affect long‑run revenue projections and taxable income composition ^{[5] [6]}. Analysts caution that mobility is only one channel; tax avoidance, income timing, and business pass‑through changes could also alter realized receipts.

5. Competing Narratives and Possible Agendas — Who’s Saying What and Why

There is a clear partisan and institutional split in characterization. Progressive outlets and fiscal advocates emphasize revenue equity and limited mobility effects to support the millionaire surcharge, while conservative think tanks and some business‑oriented analysts stress higher marginal rates, corporate tax hikes, and worst‑case revenue impacts. Those differences reflect predictable agendas: proponents frame the change as a narrowly targeted equity measure, while opponents frame it as an economic disincentive that risks revenue and competitiveness. Readers should weigh both the empirical migration studies and the revenue‑sharing calculations when evaluating the claims ^{[1] [3] [4]}.

6. Bottom Line and Key Uncertainties Moving Forward

Factually, the Mamdani formula would make people earning over $1 million pay more, increasing their share of tax revenue to a majority of city income tax receipts according to several estimates. Key uncertainties remain about the exact structure (surcharge vs. bracket), accompanying corporate changes, and the size of behavioral responses that would affect final revenue. Policymakers and analysts will need to reconcile revenue projections with mobility and avoidance assumptions to provide a precise fiscal forecast; until then, the central, uncontested point is that the plan deliberately shifts a larger burden onto the very top earners ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}.